Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mormonism and Christianity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mormonism and Christianity

Had immense attention and focus in late 2003 and early 2004, and has been extremely stable since then. No images. Tom Haws

  • Support, although article could use an appropriate image and the lead block should be trimmed. This article's journey highlights the benefits of group editing by wikipedians of varied backgrounds. Cool Hand Luke 07:02, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is an excellent example of collaboration from Mormon adherents, critics of Mormons and editors of other faiths. -Visorstuff 16:39, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Some uncouth writing and unclear points. Cookiecaper 17:29, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Run on sentences and material that belongs elsewhere. Clean it up and separate the material into several articles. This should not be an article showcasing opposition to the LDS faith via mainstream Christianity. This article should be used to branch out intoseveral new articles or to salt existing articles with its work. --Vegasbright 18:57, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Lead section is too long and I'd like to see more inline citations. As is, almost all are just associated with quotations. The other data presented in the article also need to be backed up when particular points are made. --mav 02:43, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support This is a well-balanced article on a potentially contentious subject. While improvements could be made, I'm fairly certain that will always be the case. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - Talk 16:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I agree that the lead might be successfully trimmed to the article's benefit, and I don't dispute that some minor tweaks still remain, but to deny FA status to one of the best examples of Wikipedia offering a neutral, accurate, informative article on an extremely controversial subject would not be right, in my opinion. If every article at Wikipedia was this good (including all the other controversial areas), we could be proud indeed. Jwrosenzweig 22:47, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The article is good for the reasons Jwrosenzweig says, but the writing needs to be improved first, and I think several sections could either be written more concisely or possibly have some material moved elsewhere. It deserves to be cleaned up and renominated, and to this end I've begun to give it some renewed attention. Can't imagine what image would go with the article. Wesley 03:37, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the lead section definitely needs to be tidied up: it's not only too long, it doesn't really fulfil the definitional and structuring role it really should. But hopefully that can be fixed during the period the article's under consideration. Alai 02:27, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)